LAPD’s M.O. Hampers Deadly Force Inquiries

Revelations during the past several days of unjustified shootings, planted guns and false police reports raise issues concerning the accuracy of LAPD’s investigations into shootings by police. Any time a police officer must resort to deadly force, the Police Department as well as the public have a vital interest in ensuring that the shooting investigation is thorough and objective.

Both sworn and civilian police employees have important defined roles in the evaluation of all police shootings. Many of these individuals are well-qualified, sincere and want to “get to the bottom” of each incident. However, during my 2 1/2 years as the LAPD’s first inspector general, I observed procedural glitches that may well affect the efficacy, objectivity and timeliness of shooting investigations.

* Investigative procedures allow taint. Immediately following a shooting, specially trained detectives within the Robbery-Homicide Division inspect the crime scene, gather evidence and interview witnesses. Many officers at the crime scene refuse to talk to detectives from Robbery-Homicide until they speak with their attorneys. Generally, one attorney from the police union may interview numerous officers. Only after attorney consultations do officers give official statements. This procedure may allow information to be wittingly or unwittingly transferred from one officer to another through attorneys prior to an official interview.

* Strong views of the chief may influence use-of-force boards. After each shooting, the LAPD convenes a use-of-force board that recommends to the chief of police, among other things, whether a shooting is “in” or “out” of policy. The commanding officers on this board are charged with making independent decisions but are dependent upon the chief for career advancement. If information travels in any manner to board members that the chief of police believes a shooting is OK, the chief’s view likely will prevail.

Additionally, a new policy directs that Police Commission staff leaves the board room after the factual presentation. Without observing commanding officers debate the shooting, the civilian commission staffers are disadvantaged in their ability to understand key shooting nuances and policy implications and convey those understandings to the Police Commission.

* Commission staff does not independently investigate shootings and receive little support. Police Commission staff, including the inspector general, is not given reports of shootings until months have passed. The Police Commission directs its staff to review the department’s prepared reports but not to conduct independent investigations. Witnesses are almost never interviewed.

Commission staff writes a report evaluating each shooting. I remember several instances when worried staffers who disagreed with the chief’s report tried mightily to come up with language that didn’t offend him but that expressed their position. However, the chief often met even toned-down language with sarcasm. During one commission meeting, after a staff member politely expressed his view, Chief Bernard C. Parks stated, “That’s a very astute comment from someone who wasn’t there.”

No one reminded the chief that the staff member performed a commission-mandated responsibility. This process does not encourage independent and objective staff reports.

During the time I was inspector general, the Police Commission never overruled the chief on the issue of whether a shooting was “in” or “out” of policy.

* LAPD shootings do not receive outside review. Until 1996, all LAPD shootings were reviewed by the Los Angeles County district attorney. After budget cutbacks, the district attorney told police departments that they could refer shootings for review on a voluntary basis. Some agencies, such as the Sheriff’s Department, voluntarily request that the district attorney review most of their shootings. LAPD does not follow this practice.

The LAPD policy is to refer a shooting to the district attorney only if the department believes that a crime has been committed. Using that standard, almost all LAPD shootings are resolved in-house. Several times during my tenure, I requested that the Police Commission refer particular shootings to the district attorney’s office for review. I also requested that the Police Commission direct the department to expand its criteria for making shooting referrals to the district attorney. These recommendations were not followed.

* Police Commission receives reports too late to affect discipline. The use-of-force board recommendation regarding each shooting goes to the chief of police, who may concur or disagree with the recommendation but cannot change it. The chief then sends a separate report with his recommendation to the Police Commission. The commission has the power to overturn any or all findings of the department. The commission receives the chief’s report months after the actual shooting. On some occasions, the one-year statute of limitations already has passed, and an officer cannot be disciplined, regardless of the Police Commission’s desires. In other instances, the department already has informed the involved officer of its verdict months earlier, making any contrary commission decision a direct challenge to the chief’s authority.

* The potential for civil liability pervades the shooting evaluation process. The specter of potential civil liability for a so-called “bad shooting” haunts numerous players in the system. Neither the Police Department, Police Commission, City Council nor mayor relishes explaining to taxpayers that hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid out for a shooting gone awry. It is understood within the LAPD, commencing with the initial Robbery-Homicide investigation, that a bad shooting begets an “out of policy” classification, which, in turn, begets potential civil liability. There is nothing to gain by classifying shootings as “out of policy” and much, financially, to lose.

There are no easy answers. Each officer who uses deadly force needs to know that his/her split-second decision won’t be second-guessed by anyone with a personal or political agenda. The public interest requires that the mandated review of all shootings be objective and thorough.

This is an evolutionary process that requires continuous review to ensure that the interests of all concerned are protected. I am hopeful that recent events will be an impetus for such a review.